Only valid for active forum users. Active means at least 30 postings within the last 30 days (no spam postings). This will automatically being checked at www.starbike.com shopping basket so make sure that you are logged in at the WW board!If there does not appear a WW discount position when you check out you do not have enough postings!

zappafile123 wrote:Some of you guys are confusing the internal validity of the argument with its (largely though not exclusively) erroneous application to appraising differences between equipment. The pro's ride it argument does tell you that a piece of equipment probably works quite well. However, the argument itself is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove that point - you can all tell that your equipment works quite well cause it does what its supposed to do whilst you use it (among other pieces of evidence regarding the quality of contemporary kit).

The key point I'm making is that the 'pro's ride it' argument doesnt contribute anything meaningful to arguments about phenomenal experiences with the equipment - i.e. whats its like to use a piece of equipment. At the end of the day, when we ask what the difference between a Colnago C60 and a Bianchi Oltre XR4 is, we want to get a mental representation of what its like to ride both bikes so we can choose which one suits our needs the best. The problem is that users on the forum do use the pro's ride it argument to make claims about the phenomenal qualities of equipment all the time... which is just dumb.

Again here is an example of how people inappropriately use the argument:

Bob: "I'm interested in C60 vs. V1R" Charly: "I havent ridden a V1R, but I didnt think the C60 felt as stiff through the BB as my Giant TCR SL, it just doesnt feel as racey" Raskolnikov: "Well the pro's ride it, the C60 must be stiff and racey"

Clearly Raskolnikov's argument leaves a lot to be desired/is really annoying. All his argument is saying is that the C60 is of a sufficient standard to be raced. The problem is pretty much any bike from the major manufacturers is of a sufficient standard to be raced.

So basically you have a two page thread going about certain kinds of posts on an internet forum that annoy you yet you still recognize that they're still pretty valid all while writing in college-undergrad format. Okay.

rossjm11 wrote:super stiff set of bars and a stem definitely helps in a sprint.

Sorry, not true or at least inaccurate. Stiff bars and light wheels might feel better, but won't save you *any* energy in a flat race.

I did not claim they made you faster, I said they help in a sprint.

In what way could stiff bars possibly "help in a sprint" if not by making you faster? And please, no hand-waving about "confidence" or "handling." Those are unquantifiable and (much worse) unfalsifiable. Speed is the only thing that wins sprints from a bar-stem perspective. Any decent bar and stem will be stiff enough not to matter in terms of 200-meter times.

Theoreticallly and I am not an expert at all so i'm just throwing this out there based a novel I read about Pankration - As the Hands are connected to the legs with the Fascia, when you are standing and sprinting the less energy absorbed by a flexy stem/bar gets transferred directly into more leg power.

I know that I can put a lot more force into the pedals by holding onto the bars and pulling on them versus riding with no hands.

Scientists are figuring out that the Fascia provides/transfers a lot more power than previously assumed.

Just a thought and I know I didn't explain this correctly but if the bar is absorbing x watts you are losing that in leg power. I have no idea of how to do the calcs, but Fairwheel has tests of how a bar and stem deflect under a certain load. The watts required to deflect that should be able to be calculated from that.

bilwit wrote:So basically you have a two page thread going about certain kinds of posts on an internet forum that annoy you yet you still recognize that they're still pretty valid all while writing in college-undergrad format. Okay.

Um... do you understand the argument? Because based on what you just said it sounds like you dont.

Besides, what are forums for other than to share opinions, discuss and debate stuff? Who cares if I like to write in a verbose way, the language is more precise. It sounds like you're being rude for its own sake.

rossjm11 wrote:super stiff set of bars and a stem definitely helps in a sprint.

Sorry, not true or at least inaccurate. Stiff bars and light wheels might feel better, but won't save you *any* energy in a flat race.

I did not claim they made you faster, I said they help in a sprint.

In what way could stiff bars possibly "help in a sprint" if not by making you faster? And please, no hand-waving about "confidence" or "handling." Those are unquantifiable and (much worse) unfalsifiable. Speed is the only thing that wins sprints from a bar-stem perspective. Any decent bar and stem will be stiff enough not to matter in terms of 200-meter times.

Okay, so Cav races with an unmarked Zipp sprint stem because it does not help in the sprint? Or are you sayin it makes him faster?

kkibbler wrote:Good thing nobody answers "what is X equipment like?" with "the pros ride it so it must be good." It responds to a different set of questions and statements.

You'd be surprised, it happens a lot on here, thats why I wrote the post. It more so happens like this

Bob: "I'm interested in C60 vs. V1R" Charly: "I havent ridden a V1R, but I didnt think the C60 felt as stiff through the BB as my Giant TCR SL, it just doesnt feel as racey" Raskolnikov: "Well the pro's ride it, the C60 must be stiff and racey"

Then...

Tom: "A guy I used to race with got to test ride the V1R once, for 5 minutes, and thought the vertical compliance just wasn't there".OP: "I think I'll get the C60. I guess they wouldn't ride it if it wasn't comfortable as well as being stiff and racey, right?"

kkibbler wrote:Good thing nobody answers "what is X equipment like?" with "the pros ride it so it must be good." It responds to a different set of questions and statements.

You'd be surprised, it happens a lot on here, thats why I wrote the post. It more so happens like this

Bob: "I'm interested in C60 vs. V1R" Charly: "I havent ridden a V1R, but I didnt think the C60 felt as stiff through the BB as my Giant TCR SL, it just doesnt feel as racey" Raskolnikov: "Well the pro's ride it, the C60 must be stiff and racey"

Then...

Tom: "A guy I used to race with got to test ride the V1R once, for 5 minutes, and thought the vertical compliance just wasn't there".OP: "I think I'll get the C60. I guess they wouldn't ride it if it wasn't comfortable as well as being stiff and racey, right?"

waltthizzney wrote:LOL you actually think these things make any difference? Are you at the absolute limit of your performance and fitness?

If the pros ride it... it to TO GOOD for you.

As someone who races Cat 1/2 it makes little to no difference once you are riding a 105 level bike.

Respectfully, I believe that just isn't true. A super stiff set of bars and a stem definitely helps in a sprint. Lightweight wheels, specifically carbon wish depth, save a ton of energy in races over 105 level wheels, because you freewheel way more. Equipment will not win you a race, but little to no difference?

To OP;I think in certain situations you can say pros riding it proves something. If pros are racing it, banging out 1900 watt sprints and such, it isn't shit. It shows the company is actually testing the stuff very heavily and theoretically improving it as time goes on.

With that said, you're not wrong that the pros ride it isn't a great argument.

You clearly do not race at a high level..... and if you are a master racer, lusting for gear to get faster is even more stupid. Its fine to have nice stuff, but the concept that PROS are riding gear inferior to yours is insane.

There is a split second decision in every race where you have to decide if you are going to put down the power or not, that is what makes a difference, a functioning bike with an aggressive position is all you need.

Working on your flexibility will get you faster than any set of wheels ever will.

Well first, I clearly am not saying equipment makes up for fitness. Second, I am a high level racer, don't try to be rude to those who may be faster than you

Finally, I'd say the higher I personally get, the more I notice little fitness gains and little gear gains. Not just in bikes but also shoes etc.

One example of pros riding the best was when SRAM was not yet electric and only ONE worldtour team ran SRAM. All else went for Di2 or EPS

lol you are a shill to cycling marketing you will not meet anyone with any talent or fitness who shares this insane opinion as you

Marin wrote:Sorry, not true or at least inaccurate. Stiff bars and light wheels might feel better, but won't save you *any* energy in a flat race.

I did not claim they made you faster, I said they help in a sprint.

In what way could stiff bars possibly "help in a sprint" if not by making you faster? And please, no hand-waving about "confidence" or "handling." Those are unquantifiable and (much worse) unfalsifiable. Speed is the only thing that wins sprints from a bar-stem perspective. Any decent bar and stem will be stiff enough not to matter in terms of 200-meter times.

Okay, so Cav races with an unmarked Zipp sprint stem because it does not help in the sprint? Or are you sayin it makes him faster?

No, Mark Cavendish's stem doesn't make him any faster.

I can't help noticing that you're still dodging the question. Since Cavendish's stem doesn't make him faster, how do you think it "helps in a sprint?"

morrisond wrote:Theoreticallly and I am not an expert at all so i'm just throwing this out there based a novel I read about Pankration - As the Hands are connected to the legs with the Fascia, when you are standing and sprinting the less energy absorbed by a flexy stem/bar gets transferred directly into more leg power.

I know that I can put a lot more force into the pedals by holding onto the bars and pulling on them versus riding with no hands.

Scientists are figuring out that the Fascia provides/transfers a lot more power than previously assumed.

Just a thought and I know I didn't explain this correctly but if the bar is absorbing x watts you are losing that in leg power. I have no idea of how to do the calcs, but Fairwheel has tests of how a bar and stem deflect under a certain load. The watts required to deflect that should be able to be calculated from that.

I have always wanted to write this: the rest is left as an exercise for the reader.

The really hard quantity to find is the strain energy stored by the handlebar, stem, frame, etc. FEA makes this straightforward, but the tools aren't readily available to most people.

You haven't explained enough about your fascia idea for it to be called right or wrong, but keep in mind that "power transfer" isn't a thing in science/engineering. So if someone is telling you that your fascia is deeply involved in "power transfer," they're deceiving you, themselves, or both. For example, my hands are connected to my legs via my blood vessels, but my blood vessels don't "transfer power" from my hands to my legs. My blood vessels mostly transfer blood.